The stewards used such an obscure reason to DSQ Senna do you honestly believe they wouldn't have used a better one if they could.

I really think F1 stewards are deeply incompetent, but it's true that you have to wonder why they picked cutting the chicane as the reason. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a copy of the 1989 regulations, but I do have the current ones PDF'd to my computer.

Quote:

22.4 If a car stops on the track it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly aspossible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other competitors. Underno circumstances may a driver stop his car on the track without justifiable reason.

If any mechanical assistance received during the race results in the car re-joining the stewardsmay exclude him from the race (other than under Article 22.7(d).

Under the current rules then, they could easily disqualify him for what happened. I don't know if that clause was in the sporting regulations circa 1989, however.

TBF none of this would DSQ Senna. I believe a car is allowed to be pushed if it is deemed to be in a dangerous position but they stewards are pretty liberal on that. Remember Hamilton getting craned back on the track in Nurberg?

Keep in mind that in 1989, F1 did not have the "Guest Steward" program that we have today. Nor was any Charlie Whiting of the day there to oversee the race (with consistency from race to race).

Race stewards for the most part were LOCAL volunteers, and in this particular case no less than Honda fans at Honda's home track in 1989. Corner workers were even less knowledgeable of the rules than race stewards.

Prost realized his car was stalled and -- knowing the rules -- simply got out and walked off. But the corner workers went out of their way to push start Senna's car at Senna's urging, when he should have known better. Rest assured, had the situation occurred at another track (not Honda's home track), no corner worker would have been so eager to put himself in danger long enough to push start (any) stalled car. OK, maybe at Monza or Imola for a stalled Ferrari (only), but I digress...

The rule has always been that if the car stalls on or off track (engine quits), it is considered "abandoned" and not eligible for a push to restart the engine, regardless if pushed to clear a track obstruction or not. Back then, cars almost always stalled when running into the prevalent gravel traps of the day. I've watched this happen hundreds of times through the years.

A push start then is different from pushing a running car among the other instances you've cited. You see more instances of pushing cars TODAY because... 1) the electronics permit the engine to continue running, and 2) the gravel traps have all been eliminated with the newer circuits, or via paving over at the few older tracks. The paved runoff areas allow a driver more time to disengage the electronic clutch with the flick of a finger, and it also permits corner workers easier access to the car (compared with gravel). So the cars today seldom stall.

Finally, the escape road is not part of the racing surface (then or now). In this particular case, both cars skidded to a stall with both noses over the track boundary line. It wasn't called "track limits" back then, but the boundary of the course was clearly defined, none the less. Senna got the only push assist available... straight off the track (beyond the track boundary) and into the escape road. But he shouldn't have been pushed at all, since the engine clearly had stalled.

BTW, I watched this race live, and recorded it at the same time. I watched my own replay of the incident (and commentator remarks) countless times before You-tube was ever invented. So my memory is indelibly etched with this one...

Finally, Senna's Super License was issued a 6-month ban at the time (suspended) and a $100,000 fine. So it's beyond clear who the officials of the day considered at fault. Let's not attempt to rewrite history here.

_________________Life-Long F1 Fan from 1965 -- More than 575 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...

The stewards used such an obscure reason to DSQ Senna do you honestly believe they wouldn't have used a better one if they could.

I really think F1 stewards are deeply incompetent, but it's true that you have to wonder why they picked cutting the chicane as the reason. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a copy of the 1989 regulations, but I do have the current ones PDF'd to my computer.

Quote:

22.4 If a car stops on the track it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly aspossible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other competitors. Underno circumstances may a driver stop his car on the track without justifiable reason.

If any mechanical assistance received during the race results in the car re-joining the stewardsmay exclude him from the race (other than under Article 22.7(d).

Under the current rules then, they could easily disqualify him for what happened. I don't know if that clause was in the sporting regulations circa 1989, however.

TBF none of this would DSQ Senna. I believe a car is allowed to be pushed if it is deemed to be in a dangerous position but they stewards are pretty liberal on that. Remember Hamilton getting craned back on the track in Nurberg?

Schumacher got himself pushed back on track a few times as well.

Yes, and both of them should have been disqualified for it (Fangio did it as well, long before my time, and likely many others). The car is supposed to be pushed off track through the barriers, not back onto the track.

Admittedly 'mechanical assistance' isn't actually spelled out, but I would think getting help restarting your car is pretty clear-cut mechanical assistance. What do you think the rule is intended to prevent?

The stewards used such an obscure reason to DSQ Senna do you honestly believe they wouldn't have used a better one if they could.

I really think F1 stewards are deeply incompetent, but it's true that you have to wonder why they picked cutting the chicane as the reason. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a copy of the 1989 regulations, but I do have the current ones PDF'd to my computer.

Quote:

22.4 If a car stops on the track it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly aspossible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other competitors. Underno circumstances may a driver stop his car on the track without justifiable reason.

If any mechanical assistance received during the race results in the car re-joining the stewardsmay exclude him from the race (other than under Article 22.7(d).

Under the current rules then, they could easily disqualify him for what happened. I don't know if that clause was in the sporting regulations circa 1989, however.

TBF none of this would DSQ Senna. I believe a car is allowed to be pushed if it is deemed to be in a dangerous position but they stewards are pretty liberal on that. Remember Hamilton getting craned back on the track in Nurberg?

Schumacher got himself pushed back on track a few times as well.

Yes, and both of them should have been disqualified for it (Fangio did it as well, long before my time, and likely many others). The car is supposed to be pushed off track through the barriers, not back onto the track.

Admittedly 'mechanical assistance' isn't actually spelled out, but I would think getting help restarting your car is pretty clear-cut mechanical assistance. What do you think the rule is intended to prevent?

I think it's yet another of these deliberately vague rules that allow the stewards to decide on the fly what is legal and what isn't. Schumacher got pushed back on a few times though so the powers that be must have been ok with it.

Keep in mind that in 1989, F1 did not have the "Guest Steward" program that we have today. Nor was any Charlie Whiting of the day there to oversee the race (with consistency from race to race).

Race stewards for the most part were LOCAL volunteers, and in this particular case no less than Honda fans at Honda's home track in 1989. Corner workers were even less knowledgeable of the rules than race stewards.

Prost realized his car was stalled and -- knowing the rules -- simply got out and walked off. But the corner workers went out of their way to push start Senna's car at Senna's urging, when he should have known better. Rest assured, had the situation occurred at another track (not Honda's home track), no corner worker would have been so eager to put himself in danger long enough to push start (any) stalled car. OK, maybe at Monza or Imola for a stalled Ferrari (only), but I digress...

The rule has always been that if the car stalls on or off track (engine quits), it is considered "abandoned" and not eligible for a push to restart the engine, regardless if pushed to clear a track obstruction or not. Back then, cars almost always stalled when running into the prevalent gravel traps of the day. I've watched this happen hundreds of times through the years.

A push start then is different from pushing a running car among the other instances you've cited. You see more instances of pushing cars TODAY because... 1) the electronics permit the engine to continue running, and 2) the gravel traps have all been eliminated with the newer circuits, or via paving over at the few older tracks. The paved runoff areas allow a driver more time to disengage the electronic clutch with the flick of a finger, and it also permits corner workers easier access to the car (compared with gravel). So the cars today seldom stall.

Finally, the escape road is not part of the racing surface (then or now). In this particular case, both cars skidded to a stall with both noses over the track boundary line. It wasn't called "track limits" back then, but the boundary of the course was clearly defined, none the less. Senna got the only push assist available... straight off the track (beyond the track boundary) and into the escape road. But he shouldn't have been pushed at all, since the engine clearly had stalled.

BTW, I watched this race live, and recorded it at the same time. I watched my own replay of the incident (and commentator remarks) countless times before You-tube was ever invented. So my memory is indelibly etched with this one...

Finally, Senna's Super License was issued a 6-month ban at the time (suspended) and a $100,000 fine. So it's beyond clear who the officials of the day considered at fault. Let's not attempt to rewrite history here.

The stewards used such an obscure reason to DSQ Senna do you honestly believe they wouldn't have used a better one if they could.

I really think F1 stewards are deeply incompetent, but it's true that you have to wonder why they picked cutting the chicane as the reason. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a copy of the 1989 regulations, but I do have the current ones PDF'd to my computer.

Quote:

22.4 If a car stops on the track it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly aspossible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other competitors. Underno circumstances may a driver stop his car on the track without justifiable reason.

If any mechanical assistance received during the race results in the car re-joining the stewardsmay exclude him from the race (other than under Article 22.7(d).

Under the current rules then, they could easily disqualify him for what happened. I don't know if that clause was in the sporting regulations circa 1989, however.

TBF none of this would DSQ Senna. I believe a car is allowed to be pushed if it is deemed to be in a dangerous position but they stewards are pretty liberal on that. Remember Hamilton getting craned back on the track in Nurberg?

Schumacher got himself pushed back on track a few times as well.

Yes, and both of them should have been disqualified for it (Fangio did it as well, long before my time, and likely many others). The car is supposed to be pushed off track through the barriers, not back onto the track.

Admittedly 'mechanical assistance' isn't actually spelled out, but I would think getting help restarting your car is pretty clear-cut mechanical assistance. What do you think the rule is intended to prevent?

I think it's yet another of these deliberately vague rules that allow the stewards to decide on the fly what is legal and what isn't. Schumacher got pushed back on a few times though so the powers that be must have been ok with it.

Being a Schumacher enthusiast, I am interested in this. Can you give a Schumacher example Mikey? I can only remember one year in Germany, what seemed to be an attempt to beach it at the curve to restart the race. What other times was he pushed? I understand this veers off a tad, but we can keep it short.

The pushing back on track was only for cars with engines running and in a dangerous position if I'm not mistaken. Senna's car had the engine stalled and it was out of the track when the overzealous marshals kept pushing it. Luck played in Senna's side, as the track was a bit downhill at that point if I am not mistaken and he bump started his car. Genius move or cheating? I think it was on the naughty side. I don't think the rules state anywhere that they can't bump start the car, but the fact that the marshals were pushing him way beyond the track's limits is what was the real infringement. Push starts were not allowed since the Fangio years; as POB reports in his site there was a case where Fangio got push started but the FIA never challenged the old man:

Keep in mind that in 1989, F1 did not have the "Guest Steward" program that we have today. Nor was any Charlie Whiting of the day there to oversee the race (with consistency from race to race).

Race stewards for the most part were LOCAL volunteers, and in this particular case no less than Honda fans at Honda's home track in 1989. Corner workers were even less knowledgeable of the rules than race stewards.

Prost realized his car was stalled and -- knowing the rules -- simply got out and walked off. But the corner workers went out of their way to push start Senna's car at Senna's urging, when he should have known better. Rest assured, had the situation occurred at another track (not Honda's home track), no corner worker would have been so eager to put himself in danger long enough to push start (any) stalled car. OK, maybe at Monza or Imola for a stalled Ferrari (only), but I digress...

The rule has always been that if the car stalls on or off track (engine quits), it is considered "abandoned" and not eligible for a push to restart the engine, regardless if pushed to clear a track obstruction or not. Back then, cars almost always stalled when running into the prevalent gravel traps of the day. I've watched this happen hundreds of times through the years.

A push start then is different from pushing a running car among the other instances you've cited. You see more instances of pushing cars TODAY because... 1) the electronics permit the engine to continue running, and 2) the gravel traps have all been eliminated with the newer circuits, or via paving over at the few older tracks. The paved runoff areas allow a driver more time to disengage the electronic clutch with the flick of a finger, and it also permits corner workers easier access to the car (compared with gravel). So the cars today seldom stall.

Finally, the escape road is not part of the racing surface (then or now). In this particular case, both cars skidded to a stall with both noses over the track boundary line. It wasn't called "track limits" back then, but the boundary of the course was clearly defined, none the less. Senna got the only push assist available... straight off the track (beyond the track boundary) and into the escape road. But he shouldn't have been pushed at all, since the engine clearly had stalled.

BTW, I watched this race live, and recorded it at the same time. I watched my own replay of the incident (and commentator remarks) countless times before You-tube was ever invented. So my memory is indelibly etched with this one...

Finally, Senna's Super License was issued a 6-month ban at the time (suspended) and a $100,000 fine. So it's beyond clear who the officials of the day considered at fault. Let's not attempt to rewrite history here.

Why has nobody else ever been DSQ'd for cutting the track?

This is where the FIA is failing really. Why wasn't Senna DSQ'd for Suzuka '90? Does the absence of penalty mean that what he did was right?

TBF none of this would DSQ Senna. I believe a car is allowed to be pushed if it is deemed to be in a dangerous position but they stewards are pretty liberal on that. Remember Hamilton getting craned back on the track in Nurberg?

Schumacher got himself pushed back on track a few times as well.

Yes, and both of them should have been disqualified for it (Fangio did it as well, long before my time, and likely many others). The car is supposed to be pushed off track through the barriers, not back onto the track.

Admittedly 'mechanical assistance' isn't actually spelled out, but I would think getting help restarting your car is pretty clear-cut mechanical assistance. What do you think the rule is intended to prevent?

I think it's yet another of these deliberately vague rules that allow the stewards to decide on the fly what is legal and what isn't. Schumacher got pushed back on a few times though so the powers that be must have been ok with it.

Being a Schumacher enthusiast, I am interested in this. Can you give a Schumacher example Mikey? I can only remember one year in Germany, what seemed to be an attempt to beach it at the curve to restart the race. What other times was he pushed? I understand this veers off a tad, but we can keep it short.

The pushing back on track was only for cars with engines running and in a dangerous position if I'm not mistaken. Senna's car had the engine stalled and it was out of the track when the overzealous marshals kept pushing it. Luck played in Senna's side, as the track was a bit downhill at that point if I am not mistaken and he bump started his car. Genius move or cheating? I think it was on the naughty side. I don't think the rules state anywhere that they can't bump start the car, but the fact that the marshals were pushing him way beyond the track's limits is what was the real infringement. Push starts were not allowed since the Fangio years; as POB reports in his site there was a case where Fangio got push started but the FIA never challenged the old man:

Keep in mind that in 1989, F1 did not have the "Guest Steward" program that we have today. Nor was any Charlie Whiting of the day there to oversee the race (with consistency from race to race).

Race stewards for the most part were LOCAL volunteers, and in this particular case no less than Honda fans at Honda's home track in 1989. Corner workers were even less knowledgeable of the rules than race stewards.

Prost realized his car was stalled and -- knowing the rules -- simply got out and walked off. But the corner workers went out of their way to push start Senna's car at Senna's urging, when he should have known better. Rest assured, had the situation occurred at another track (not Honda's home track), no corner worker would have been so eager to put himself in danger long enough to push start (any) stalled car. OK, maybe at Monza or Imola for a stalled Ferrari (only), but I digress...

The rule has always been that if the car stalls on or off track (engine quits), it is considered "abandoned" and not eligible for a push to restart the engine, regardless if pushed to clear a track obstruction or not. Back then, cars almost always stalled when running into the prevalent gravel traps of the day. I've watched this happen hundreds of times through the years.

A push start then is different from pushing a running car among the other instances you've cited. You see more instances of pushing cars TODAY because... 1) the electronics permit the engine to continue running, and 2) the gravel traps have all been eliminated with the newer circuits, or via paving over at the few older tracks. The paved runoff areas allow a driver more time to disengage the electronic clutch with the flick of a finger, and it also permits corner workers easier access to the car (compared with gravel). So the cars today seldom stall.

Finally, the escape road is not part of the racing surface (then or now). In this particular case, both cars skidded to a stall with both noses over the track boundary line. It wasn't called "track limits" back then, but the boundary of the course was clearly defined, none the less. Senna got the only push assist available... straight off the track (beyond the track boundary) and into the escape road. But he shouldn't have been pushed at all, since the engine clearly had stalled.

BTW, I watched this race live, and recorded it at the same time. I watched my own replay of the incident (and commentator remarks) countless times before You-tube was ever invented. So my memory is indelibly etched with this one...

Finally, Senna's Super License was issued a 6-month ban at the time (suspended) and a $100,000 fine. So it's beyond clear who the officials of the day considered at fault. Let's not attempt to rewrite history here.

Why has nobody else ever been DSQ'd for cutting the track?

This is where the FIA is failing really. Why wasn't Senna DSQ'd for Suzuka '90? Does the absence of penalty mean that what he did was right?

Of course not. Just like Prost didn't get one in 89. The difference here is that the stewards were obviously very keen to DSQ. If they had a better reason to do it than the very poor one they used why not use it?

But I feel we have somewhat deviated here. Even if the DSQ for Senna was justified it make Prost's actions before that excusable.

Keep in mind that in 1989, F1 did not have the "Guest Steward" program that we have today. Nor was any Charlie Whiting of the day there to oversee the race (with consistency from race to race).

Race stewards for the most part were LOCAL volunteers, and in this particular case no less than Honda fans at Honda's home track in 1989. Corner workers were even less knowledgeable of the rules than race stewards.

Prost realized his car was stalled and -- knowing the rules -- simply got out and walked off. But the corner workers went out of their way to push start Senna's car at Senna's urging, when he should have known better. Rest assured, had the situation occurred at another track (not Honda's home track), no corner worker would have been so eager to put himself in danger long enough to push start (any) stalled car. OK, maybe at Monza or Imola for a stalled Ferrari (only), but I digress...

The rule has always been that if the car stalls on or off track (engine quits), it is considered "abandoned" and not eligible for a push to restart the engine, regardless if pushed to clear a track obstruction or not. Back then, cars almost always stalled when running into the prevalent gravel traps of the day. I've watched this happen hundreds of times through the years.

A push start then is different from pushing a running car among the other instances you've cited. You see more instances of pushing cars TODAY because... 1) the electronics permit the engine to continue running, and 2) the gravel traps have all been eliminated with the newer circuits, or via paving over at the few older tracks. The paved runoff areas allow a driver more time to disengage the electronic clutch with the flick of a finger, and it also permits corner workers easier access to the car (compared with gravel). So the cars today seldom stall.

Finally, the escape road is not part of the racing surface (then or now). In this particular case, both cars skidded to a stall with both noses over the track boundary line. It wasn't called "track limits" back then, but the boundary of the course was clearly defined, none the less. Senna got the only push assist available... straight off the track (beyond the track boundary) and into the escape road. But he shouldn't have been pushed at all, since the engine clearly had stalled.

BTW, I watched this race live, and recorded it at the same time. I watched my own replay of the incident (and commentator remarks) countless times before You-tube was ever invented. So my memory is indelibly etched with this one...

Finally, Senna's Super License was issued a 6-month ban at the time (suspended) and a $100,000 fine. So it's beyond clear who the officials of the day considered at fault. Let's not attempt to rewrite history here.

Why has nobody else ever been DSQ'd for cutting the track?

This is where the FIA is failing really. Why wasn't Senna DSQ'd for Suzuka '90? Does the absence of penalty mean that what he did was right?

Of course not. Just like Prost didn't get one in 89. The difference here is that the stewards were obviously very keen to DSQ. If they had a better reason to do it than the very poor one they used why not use it?

But I feel we have somewhat deviated here. Even if the DSQ for Senna was justified it make Prost's actions before that excusable.

I don't know why they didn't DSQ him for the push start but rather for the chicane cutting. I wish we could ask them. They did seem "trigger happy" to issue a DSQ, only they know why...

We agree on everything else. As I mentioned earlier, I do believe that Prost escaped a potential penalty for the early turn because Senna's move looked optimistic, a bit of a dive bomb. We'll never learn if he would have made the corner or not of course, but maybe the stewards thought it was partial blame for both.

Keep in mind that in 1989, F1 did not have the "Guest Steward" program that we have today. Nor was any Charlie Whiting of the day there to oversee the race (with consistency from race to race).

Race stewards for the most part were LOCAL volunteers, and in this particular case no less than Honda fans at Honda's home track in 1989. Corner workers were even less knowledgeable of the rules than race stewards.

Prost realized his car was stalled and -- knowing the rules -- simply got out and walked off. But the corner workers went out of their way to push start Senna's car at Senna's urging, when he should have known better. Rest assured, had the situation occurred at another track (not Honda's home track), no corner worker would have been so eager to put himself in danger long enough to push start (any) stalled car. OK, maybe at Monza or Imola for a stalled Ferrari (only), but I digress...

The rule has always been that if the car stalls on or off track (engine quits), it is considered "abandoned" and not eligible for a push to restart the engine, regardless if pushed to clear a track obstruction or not. Back then, cars almost always stalled when running into the prevalent gravel traps of the day. I've watched this happen hundreds of times through the years.

A push start then is different from pushing a running car among the other instances you've cited. You see more instances of pushing cars TODAY because... 1) the electronics permit the engine to continue running, and 2) the gravel traps have all been eliminated with the newer circuits, or via paving over at the few older tracks. The paved runoff areas allow a driver more time to disengage the electronic clutch with the flick of a finger, and it also permits corner workers easier access to the car (compared with gravel). So the cars today seldom stall.

Finally, the escape road is not part of the racing surface (then or now). In this particular case, both cars skidded to a stall with both noses over the track boundary line. It wasn't called "track limits" back then, but the boundary of the course was clearly defined, none the less. Senna got the only push assist available... straight off the track (beyond the track boundary) and into the escape road. But he shouldn't have been pushed at all, since the engine clearly had stalled.

BTW, I watched this race live, and recorded it at the same time. I watched my own replay of the incident (and commentator remarks) countless times before You-tube was ever invented. So my memory is indelibly etched with this one...

Finally, Senna's Super License was issued a 6-month ban at the time (suspended) and a $100,000 fine. So it's beyond clear who the officials of the day considered at fault. Let's not attempt to rewrite history here.

No. The officials banned him not because of whether he caused the accident, but because of what happened after. There was also the matter of the war of words before the ban, with Senna accusing the FIA of manipulating the Championship. I don't think this may be ignored, if nothing else to put some background to their response. Even Balestre admitted to giving Prost a helping hand in that incident after he retired: how much is the question. Finally,Max Mosely waded into it and threw some pretty hefty accusations at Balestre after he was elected to the FIA presidency:

Most criticism was thrown at Balestre’s handling of the incident. In 1991, when Balestre stepped down as FIA President. Max Mosley, the new FIA President, stated that Balestre “…had no understanding of the separation of power.” and that Balestre “…fixed the whole thing.”

so no, the ban and fine don't necessarily tell the story of who the officials of the day considered (to be) at fault. And even if it did, it doesn't automatically mean they were right. It's not as though they've never made mistakes, either.

Keep in mind that in 1989, F1 did not have the "Guest Steward" program that we have today. Nor was any Charlie Whiting of the day there to oversee the race (with consistency from race to race).

Race stewards for the most part were LOCAL volunteers, and in this particular case no less than Honda fans at Honda's home track in 1989. Corner workers were even less knowledgeable of the rules than race stewards.

Prost realized his car was stalled and -- knowing the rules -- simply got out and walked off. But the corner workers went out of their way to push start Senna's car at Senna's urging, when he should have known better. Rest assured, had the situation occurred at another track (not Honda's home track), no corner worker would have been so eager to put himself in danger long enough to push start (any) stalled car. OK, maybe at Monza or Imola for a stalled Ferrari (only), but I digress...

The rule has always been that if the car stalls on or off track (engine quits), it is considered "abandoned" and not eligible for a push to restart the engine, regardless if pushed to clear a track obstruction or not. Back then, cars almost always stalled when running into the prevalent gravel traps of the day. I've watched this happen hundreds of times through the years.

A push start then is different from pushing a running car among the other instances you've cited. You see more instances of pushing cars TODAY because... 1) the electronics permit the engine to continue running, and 2) the gravel traps have all been eliminated with the newer circuits, or via paving over at the few older tracks. The paved runoff areas allow a driver more time to disengage the electronic clutch with the flick of a finger, and it also permits corner workers easier access to the car (compared with gravel). So the cars today seldom stall.

Finally, the escape road is not part of the racing surface (then or now). In this particular case, both cars skidded to a stall with both noses over the track boundary line. It wasn't called "track limits" back then, but the boundary of the course was clearly defined, none the less. Senna got the only push assist available... straight off the track (beyond the track boundary) and into the escape road. But he shouldn't have been pushed at all, since the engine clearly had stalled.

BTW, I watched this race live, and recorded it at the same time. I watched my own replay of the incident (and commentator remarks) countless times before You-tube was ever invented. So my memory is indelibly etched with this one...

Finally, Senna's Super License was issued a 6-month ban at the time (suspended) and a $100,000 fine. So it's beyond clear who the officials of the day considered at fault. Let's not attempt to rewrite history here.

Why has nobody else ever been DSQ'd for cutting the track?

This is where the FIA is failing really. Why wasn't Senna DSQ'd for Suzuka '90? Does the absence of penalty mean that what he did was right?

Of course not. Just like Prost didn't get one in 89. The difference here is that the stewards were obviously very keen to DSQ. If they had a better reason to do it than the very poor one they used why not use it?

But I feel we have somewhat deviated here. Even if the DSQ for Senna was justified it make Prost's actions before that excusable.

I don't know why they didn't DSQ him for the push start but rather for the chicane cutting. I wish we could ask them. They did seem "trigger happy" to issue a DSQ, only they know why...

We agree on everything else. As I mentioned earlier, I do believe that Prost escaped a potential penalty for the early turn because Senna's move looked optimistic, a bit of a dive bomb. We'll never learn if he would have made the corner or not of course, but maybe the stewards thought it was partial blame for both.

i would suggest that the reasons were simply a means to get a conviction and what they actually were were immaterial. Certainly reading up on it again leads me to believe that's as logical a conclusion as any. It seems they grabbed the opportunity and picked the first potential reason, without thinking it through completely.

I realise that sounds a bit tin-foil hatty, and I'm not normally given to conspiracy theories, but it does appear from all the evidence that there were at least some politics at play. I don't think it may be completely excluded

This is where the FIA is failing really. Why wasn't Senna DSQ'd for Suzuka '90? Does the absence of penalty mean that what he did was right?

Of course not. Just like Prost didn't get one in 89. The difference here is that the stewards were obviously very keen to DSQ. If they had a better reason to do it than the very poor one they used why not use it?

But I feel we have somewhat deviated here. Even if the DSQ for Senna was justified it make Prost's actions before that excusable.

I don't know why they didn't DSQ him for the push start but rather for the chicane cutting. I wish we could ask them. They did seem "trigger happy" to issue a DSQ, only they know why...

We agree on everything else. As I mentioned earlier, I do believe that Prost escaped a potential penalty for the early turn because Senna's move looked optimistic, a bit of a dive bomb. We'll never learn if he would have made the corner or not of course, but maybe the stewards thought it was partial blame for both.

Why do you think I feel Ramirez's statement is so important? Because he himself, while admonishing Prost, did confirm that Senna was going too fast for his attempt. So it wasn't optimistic, or a bit of a dive bomb, it was what Hunt said: a desperate attempt.

Also, I don't agree that the stewards were trigger happy to DSQ Senna. If they had been, they would have simply listed all Senna's mistakes that day, first and foremost the outside assistance received at his own request, while in the escape road, until his engine fired up again. It would take quite some research to find out, but my theory is that even as early as 1989, people were already abusing the "dangerous place" element of the rules. I always read the rule to mean that a car abandoned on the track constitutes a danger to other drivers/cars, and therefore had to be pushed off the track by the marshals. Once off the track, only leaving the track could result in an accident with a stranded car. Only the track can be used for racing, remember? (As late as last year, Max seemed unaware of this. ) **As MB-BOB pointed out, the escape road isn't part of the track, so even if Senna, or McLaren, or his legal team would have used the "dangerous place" scam, there was nothing they could do about Senna not having used the track. Not that Senna didn't try, his performance at the 1990 drivers' briefing revolves around rejoining the track via the chicane.

** This reminds me of Räikkönen's penalty at Francorchamps last year. If you can, re-read the caption that came on-screen about his penalty, and see whether it tells us literally what was happening.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

This is where the FIA is failing really. Why wasn't Senna DSQ'd for Suzuka '90? Does the absence of penalty mean that what he did was right?

Of course not. Just like Prost didn't get one in 89. The difference here is that the stewards were obviously very keen to DSQ. If they had a better reason to do it than the very poor one they used why not use it?

But I feel we have somewhat deviated here. Even if the DSQ for Senna was justified it make Prost's actions before that excusable.

I don't know why they didn't DSQ him for the push start but rather for the chicane cutting. I wish we could ask them. They did seem "trigger happy" to issue a DSQ, only they know why...

We agree on everything else. As I mentioned earlier, I do believe that Prost escaped a potential penalty for the early turn because Senna's move looked optimistic, a bit of a dive bomb. We'll never learn if he would have made the corner or not of course, but maybe the stewards thought it was partial blame for both.

Why do you think I feel Ramirez's statement is so important? Because he himself, while admonishing Prost, did confirm that Senna was going too fast for his attempt. So it wasn't optimistic, or a bit of a dive bomb, it was what Hunt said: a desperate attempt.

Also, I don't agree that the stewards were trigger happy to DSQ Senna. If they had been, they would have simply listed all Senna's mistakes that day, first and foremost the outside assistance received at his own request, while in the escape road, until his engine fired up again. It would take quite some research to find out, but my theory is that even as early as 1989, people were already abusing the "dangerous place" element of the rules. I always read the rule to mean that a car abandoned on the track constitutes a danger to other drivers/cars, and therefore had to be pushed off the track by the marshals. Once off the track, only leaving the track could result in an accident with a stranded car. Only the track can be used for racing, remember? (As late as last year, Max seemed unaware of this. ) **As MB-BOB pointed out, the escape road isn't part of the track, so even if Senna, or McLaren, or his legal team would have used the "dangerous place" scam, there was nothing they could do about Senna not having used the track. Not that Senna didn't try, his performance at the 1990 drivers' briefing revolves around rejoining the track via the chicane.

** This reminds me of Räikkönen's penalty at Francorchamps last year. If you can, re-read the caption that came on-screen about his penalty, and see whether it tells us literally what was happening.

Discussing the rules surrounding a push start is irrelevant because that's not what Senna was DSQ'd for. If he had been it would've been a lot more justified than what he was actually DSQ'd for. But he wasn't. I think anyone in Senna's position would feel pretty aggrieved. Taken out by your championship rival and then DSQ'd for something he couldn't help and always previously went unpunished anyway. Not to mention that gave the guy who took you out the championship.

This is where the FIA is failing really. Why wasn't Senna DSQ'd for Suzuka '90? Does the absence of penalty mean that what he did was right?

Of course not. Just like Prost didn't get one in 89. The difference here is that the stewards were obviously very keen to DSQ. If they had a better reason to do it than the very poor one they used why not use it?

But I feel we have somewhat deviated here. Even if the DSQ for Senna was justified it make Prost's actions before that excusable.

I don't know why they didn't DSQ him for the push start but rather for the chicane cutting. I wish we could ask them. They did seem "trigger happy" to issue a DSQ, only they know why...

We agree on everything else. As I mentioned earlier, I do believe that Prost escaped a potential penalty for the early turn because Senna's move looked optimistic, a bit of a dive bomb. We'll never learn if he would have made the corner or not of course, but maybe the stewards thought it was partial blame for both.

Why do you think I feel Ramirez's statement is so important? Because he himself, while admonishing Prost, did confirm that Senna was going too fast for his attempt. So it wasn't optimistic, or a bit of a dive bomb, it was what Hunt said: a desperate attempt.

Also, I don't agree that the stewards were trigger happy to DSQ Senna. If they had been, they would have simply listed all Senna's mistakes that day, first and foremost the outside assistance received at his own request, while in the escape road, until his engine fired up again. It would take quite some research to find out, but my theory is that even as early as 1989, people were already abusing the "dangerous place" element of the rules. I always read the rule to mean that a car abandoned on the track constitutes a danger to other drivers/cars, and therefore had to be pushed off the track by the marshals. Once off the track, only leaving the track could result in an accident with a stranded car. Only the track can be used for racing, remember? (As late as last year, Max seemed unaware of this. ) **As MB-BOB pointed out, the escape road isn't part of the track, so even if Senna, or McLaren, or his legal team would have used the "dangerous place" scam, there was nothing they could do about Senna not having used the track. Not that Senna didn't try, his performance at the 1990 drivers' briefing revolves around rejoining the track via the chicane.

** This reminds me of Räikkönen's penalty at Francorchamps last year. If you can, re-read the caption that came on-screen about his penalty, and see whether it tells us literally what was happening.

Discussing the rules surrounding a push start is irrelevant because that's not what Senna was DSQ'd for. If he had been it would've been a lot more justified than what he was actually DSQ'd for. But he wasn't. I think anyone in Senna's position would feel pretty aggrieved. Taken out by your championship rival and then DSQ'd for something he couldn't help and always previously went unpunished anyway. Not to mention that gave the guy who took you out the championship.

Discussing the rules on outside assistance is just as valid as discussing whether Prost or Senna were responsible for an incident that happened, as outside assistance clearly also happened. Just as cutting off the chicane by the use of the escape road clearly happened. Surely the bottom line is that Senna was disqualified for a clear breach? Looking past your claim that Prost took him out, I disagree that Senna couldn't have rejoined via the chicane. Please do show us previous cases, it might open up the discussion further.

I don't understand your last line, I'm afraid.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

And Senna was DSQ for cutting the track when it previously went unpunished because.....

In which cases did it go unpunished? It may well have, but the absence of a previous potential punishment, never invalidates the rule.

Any time when anyone previously cut part of a track. It was hardly the first time. Why was this the first time it was punished?

Not that I remember it, but according to one account part of the reason Senna was so upset was that Prost had cut across an access road without punishment at Imola in the same year (1989). It was one of the reasons he felt favouritism was at play as there appeared to be a double standard

And Senna was DSQ for cutting the track when it previously went unpunished because.....

In which cases did it go unpunished? It may well have, but the absence of a previous potential punishment, never invalidates the rule.

Any time when anyone previously cut part of a track. It was hardly the first time. Why was this the first time it was punished?

I don't know whether it was the first time or not. Do you?

That was the first time a punishment had been meted out for this particular offence, yes. And Prost had cut across an access road at Imola without punishment in the very same year, so we don't have to go too far back to see other examples

And Senna was DSQ for cutting the track when it previously went unpunished because.....

In which cases did it go unpunished? It may well have, but the absence of a previous potential punishment, never invalidates the rule.

Any time when anyone previously cut part of a track. It was hardly the first time. Why was this the first time it was punished?

I don't know whether it was the first time or not. Do you?

That was the first time a punishment had been meted out for this particular offence, yes. And Prost had cut across an access road at Imola without punishment in the very same year, so we don't have to go too far back to see other examples

Would you please give us the source? It would be interesting to compare the cases.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

And Senna was DSQ for cutting the track when it previously went unpunished because.....

.... the stewarts did a bad job. The DSQ, in effect, was justified because of the two push-starts but it was given with the wrong reason.

Why? The stewards must not have known about the bump start rule? If so then why DSQ? If they knew about it then why not DSQ him for that?

Why does someone do a bad job? There can be lots of reasons, incompetence and stuff. Why is it important anyway? Many people made a bad job that day. Prost with his clumsy manoeuvre. Senna with the illegal two bump starts and his full lack of insight afterwards, the stewarts by giving the right decision with a wrong reasoning, Balestre by talking lots of nonsense etc. pp.

At the end of the day, the whole Suzuka 89 affair controversially decided the race win. But it did not decide the championship.

And Senna was DSQ for cutting the track when it previously went unpunished because.....

.... the stewarts did a bad job. The DSQ, in effect, was justified because of the two push-starts but it was given with the wrong reason.

Why? The stewards must not have known about the bump start rule? If so then why DSQ? If they knew about it then why not DSQ him for that?

Why does someone do a bad job? There can be lots of reasons, incompetence and stuff. Why is it important anyway? Many people made a bad job that day. Prost with his clumsy manoeuvre. Senna with the illegal two bump starts and his full lack of insight afterwards, the stewarts by giving the right decision with a wrong reasoning, Balestre by talking lots of nonsense etc. pp.

At the end of the day, the whole Suzuka 89 affair controversially decided the race win. But it did not decide the championship.

Fully agreed. Mikey seems fixated with the wrong DSQ thing and keeps asking us. It's fine, it was indeed a cr*p decision and we all know it. I wish we could have asked the stewards so we could finally put this to bed, but here we are. Senna however should have been punished and DSQ'd anyway, so the end result is the same. This is what we need to remember.

Also, I find this specific "cutting the chicane" different to other cases. This was not an avoiding action with another car that usually results in someone cutting the chicane and giving the position back later on; this was a bump start in the escape road. I also seem to remember that Senna argued that he would have taken the proper route, but didn't want to reverse into the oncoming traffic, which I fully agree with.

Also, I find this specific "cutting the chicane" different to other cases. This was not an avoiding action with another car that usually results in someone cutting the chicane and giving the position back later on; this was a bump start in the escape road. I also seem to remember that Senna argued that he would have taken the proper route, but didn't want to reverse into the oncoming traffic, which I fully agree with.

You make a good point; it is necessary to judge every case on its own. I understand Ron Dennis appealing, because his team lost a race win. But he, and Senna, knew that appealing carried the risk of an increased punishment. Which is what happened. So it wasn't a case of "simply" cutting the chicane.

Senna made a song and dance a year later, about not rejoining the track at the point where he left it. What he (probably purposely) "forgot" to mention, was that yellow flags were being waved for oncoming traffic. And that he could perfectly have waited a bit for traffic, before rejoining. Of course, that would have undermined his song and dance number. Senna knew the rules, but chose to follow only those that suited him, when they suited him, or simply denied their applicability when they didn't.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

And Senna was DSQ for cutting the track when it previously went unpunished because.....

.... the stewarts did a bad job. The DSQ, in effect, was justified because of the two push-starts but it was given with the wrong reason.

Why? The stewards must not have known about the bump start rule? If so then why DSQ? If they knew about it then why not DSQ him for that?

There was no bump start rule. If the engine caught while the car was being pushed to a place of safety, that could be allowed, just as rolling down an incline and using the momentum to bump start would be allowed. But to ask for a bump start push while it was in a place of safety, was never allowed.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

I think it was on the Senna film where Ron Dennis shows a compilation video of drivers cutting chicanes and not receiving any punishment to the associated press when explaining the reasons for appeal.

Other than that from actually seeing it watching actual races.

Why has no driver got DSQ'd for cutting the track since Suzuka 89 either?

I believe you are right about it being in the film. I wouldn't pay good money to buy a copy of that badly biased film, but perhaps the relevant bit is online somewhere?

While I can't speak for the stewards who may have let chicane cutting slip, the problem here was that it led to a race win. We should consider Prost's right to lodge a complaint against Senna's win too. Both Senna and Prost were heard before the verdict was arrived at.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Also, I find this specific "cutting the chicane" different to other cases. This was not an avoiding action with another car that usually results in someone cutting the chicane and giving the position back later on; this was a bump start in the escape road. I also seem to remember that Senna argued that he would have taken the proper route, but didn't want to reverse into the oncoming traffic, which I fully agree with.

You make a good point; it is necessary to judge every case on its own. I understand Ron Dennis appealing, because his team lost a race win. But he, and Senna, knew that appealing carried the risk of an increased punishment. Which is what happened. So it wasn't a case of "simply" cutting the chicane.

Senna made a song and dance a year later, about not rejoining the track at the point where he left it. What he (probably purposely) "forgot" to mention, was that yellow flags were being waved for oncoming traffic. And that he could perfectly have waited a bit for traffic, before rejoining. Of course, that would have undermined his song and dance number. Senna knew the rules, but chose to follow only those that suited him, when they suited him, or simply denied their applicability when they didn't.

I'm not sure about the last bit. All cars that have to cut a chicane rejoin later down the track, there is no requirement that you have to join where you left it to my knowledge.

I think it was on the Senna film where Ron Dennis shows a compilation video of drivers cutting chicanes and not receiving any punishment to the associated press when explaining the reasons for appeal.

Other than that from actually seeing it watching actual races.

Why has no driver got DSQ'd for cutting the track since Suzuka 89 either?

I believe you are right about it being in the film. I wouldn't pay good money to buy a copy of that badly biased film, but perhaps the relevant bit is online somewhere?

While I can't speak for the stewards who may have let chicane cutting slip, the problem here was that it led to a race win. We should consider Prost's right to lodge a complaint against Senna's win too. Both Senna and Prost were heard before the verdict was arrived at.

Why should it matter if it was for a race win or 2nd place? If it's a big enough crime to warrant a DSQ then why on earth would it not get penalised whatsoever if the fouling driver finished 2nd?

Why even after the precedent was set with Senna was it never applied so harshly again?

And lets not kid ourselves here. The crime of cutting a corner is small compared to delibrately crashing into your opponent.

The whole episode stinks. From this onward 12 months to 1990 and Senna being allowed to win the championship in the same way as Prost did.

And Senna was DSQ for cutting the track when it previously went unpunished because.....

.... the stewarts did a bad job. The DSQ, in effect, was justified because of the two push-starts but it was given with the wrong reason.

Why? The stewards must not have known about the bump start rule? If so then why DSQ? If they knew about it then why not DSQ him for that?

There was no bump start rule. If the engine caught while the car was being pushed to a place of safety, that could be allowed, just as rolling down an incline and using the momentum to bump start would be allowed. But to ask for a bump start push while it was in a place of safety, was never allowed.

Hang on, What are you saying here? Senna received a push from the marshal's when on track and clearly in a dangerous position. His car is almost entirely on track when they come to a stop.

.... the stewarts did a bad job. The DSQ, in effect, was justified because of the two push-starts but it was given with the wrong reason.

Why? The stewards must not have known about the bump start rule? If so then why DSQ? If they knew about it then why not DSQ him for that?

There was no bump start rule. If the engine caught while the car was being pushed to a place of safety, that could be allowed, just as rolling down an incline and using the momentum to bump start would be allowed. But to ask for a bump start push while it was in a place of safety, was never allowed.

Hang on, What are you saying here? Senna received a push from the marshal's when on track and clearly in a dangerous position. His car is almost entirely on track when they come to a stop.

.... the stewarts did a bad job. The DSQ, in effect, was justified because of the two push-starts but it was given with the wrong reason.

Why? The stewards must not have known about the bump start rule? If so then why DSQ? If they knew about it then why not DSQ him for that?

There was no bump start rule. If the engine caught while the car was being pushed to a place of safety, that could be allowed, just as rolling down an incline and using the momentum to bump start would be allowed. But to ask for a bump start push while it was in a place of safety, was never allowed.

Hang on, What are you saying here? Senna received a push from the marshal's when on track and clearly in a dangerous position. His car is almost entirely on track when they come to a stop.

I think it's clear where it started. Senna was obviously in a dangerous position. I would argue even the escape road is surely a dangerous position. If Senna had broken down in the middle of that chicane run off there is no way his car gets left there.

I think it's clear where it started. Senna was obviously in a dangerous position. I would argue even the escape road is surely a dangerous position. If Senna had broken down in the middle of that chicane run off there is no way his car gets left there.

Of course it's clear where the car started; in the escape road, after Senna had been pushed to safety there. A car on the track has to be pushed off the track. Since that was the case, there could only have been one reason why Senna asked for an additional push. And it was not for safety.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

I think it's clear where it started. Senna was obviously in a dangerous position. I would argue even the escape road is surely a dangerous position. If Senna had broken down in the middle of that chicane run off there is no way his car gets left there.

Of course it's clear where the car started; in the escape road, after Senna had been pushed to safety there. A car on the track has to be pushed off the track. Since that was the case, there could only have been one reason why Senna asked for an additional push. And it was not for safety.

Do the rules say a driver can only ask to be pushed if his intentions are to move into a safe place? I don't think they do, so Senna's motives are a moot point. His car was in a dangerous position so allowed to be pushed. Senna's car was not in a position of safety. It was in the middle of the escape road. No way is that car being left there if Senna gets out, so clearly it is an unsafe position.

I think it's clear where it started. Senna was obviously in a dangerous position. I would argue even the escape road is surely a dangerous position. If Senna had broken down in the middle of that chicane run off there is no way his car gets left there.

Of course it's clear where the car started; in the escape road, after Senna had been pushed to safety there. A car on the track has to be pushed off the track. Since that was the case, there could only have been one reason why Senna asked for an additional push. And it was not for safety.

Do the rules say a driver can only ask to be pushed if his intentions are to move into a safe place? I don't think they do, so Senna's motives are a moot point. His car was in a dangerous position so allowed to be pushed. Senna's car was not in a position of safety. It was in the middle of the escape road. No way is that car being left there if Senna gets out, so clearly it is an unsafe position.

What you write is precisely the reasoning that was used by Senna, and other drivers after him, to get around the rule that forbids outside assistance. Look again at the rule Exediron quoted. While it is the current wording, I'm confident the 1989 one didn't differ in any essential way - though I would love to able to read all of the 1989 sporting code again, and you know I have been and remain critical of the rule writing myself.

Exediron wrote:

Quote:

22.4 If a car stops on the track it shall be the duty of the marshals to remove it as quickly aspossible so that its presence does not constitute a danger or hinder other competitors. Underno circumstances may a driver stop his car on the track without justifiable reason.

If any mechanical assistance received during the race results in the car re-joining the stewardsmay exclude him from the race (other than under Article 22.7(d).

Under the current rules then, they could easily disqualify him for what happened. I don't know if that clause was in the sporting regulations circa 1989, however.

I underlined the part that is important in order to understand that in the 1980s, a car would usually be left stranded off the track, as you can see for yourself when watching those races again. Monaco was an exception, because there mostly wasn't any place off-track for a driver to park his car, so they were usually craned or pushed off. A driver was and still is, not allowed to just stop his car on the track; he has to pull off. If he couldn't help but break down on the track, the marshals had to push it off, while passing drivers had to be prepared to stop if necessary, because of the danger to them, yellow flags being waved. So it is a car stopped on the track that is in a dangerous place. Once off the track, no pushing was required anymore, and the rules certainly didn't stipulate that the car had to be secured behind the armco or other barriers. Monaco was the obvious exception, because in most places there is only track.

So you see that Senna's motives were important. He knew that once beyond the white line marking the chicane boundary, he had been pushed into the escape road, and therefore out of a dangerous place. And the reason he kept motioning for a further push therefore was not to get himself to a place of greater safety; he asked for a further push to bump start his car and rejoin the race.

That bump start was indeed a valid reason to disqualify him from the race result, just as using the escape road without good reason was. (As I recall, drivers using the chicane escape road at Monaco, had to obey the marshals' order before being allowed to rejoin the track further down Avenue JF Kenedy.)

I think it is perfectly possible the bump start wasn't used as the prime reason for disqualifying Senna from the race result, if abuse of the But I'm confident it would have been explained to them at the appeal hearing. Just as the proper use of an escape road would have been. And most likely the proper way to interpret racing etiquette, seeing he was punished extra for dangerous driving.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.